The BSD license in particular seems like a particularly bad way to run a business.
But the switch from AGPL to SSPL didn't do either of those things.
AWS still built DocumentDB to compete with Mongodb, and didn't use any SSPL OR AGPL code in the implementation (at least according to their FAQ[1]). And AFAIK AWS isn't paying mongo any royalties.
Well, yeah, its mostly a bad plan, because while it can block competition with your code, it doesn’t block substitution with other code that provides the same function, and if you aren’t one of the big cloud providers, competing in the same function market with bundled services from the big cloud providers, whether or not it is the same underlying code, is the actual problem you face when your monetization is based around “sell a hosted service”.
Would anyone have given mongo a look if it was a fully proprietary technology? They would have gone bust years ago.
There's nothing wrong with making money and being profitable. But they have to justify investments taken with greed. This license change is motivated by greed, not by "making money" fairly.
but at the same time, they want people to be able to use the software for free (esp. at the start), to kick-start the network effect.
In other words, open-core business models want to have their cake and eat it. If you are able to make lots of money off said software, we want a piece of it after the fact. But we dont want to take on the risk of actually looking to build a business and compete on the same.
Many large orgs just say no to viral licenses, and in choosing AGPL, you put blockers to adoption.
Open core releases some of the project under permissive license, and keeps some private or under a permissions license.
We are all still trying to figure out how we can have sustainable open source where people can be paid to work on it full time
Do you have suggestions for alternative funding/support models? What is open core being replaced by from your perspective?
Personally I prefer the Adam Jacob trademark business model but it's not that proven and it can't be retrofitted.
There is certainly a difference between AGPL and BUSL style licenses. One of the new projects I'm using as some of their code with a BUSL style, but still open core primarily
It's not a technical blocker, it's a psychological blocker
Maybe the problem lies more with overreaching and trying to cash out?
At the same time, founders take money to build their idea into something more than they could do with a small team. An big companies are risk averse, having a small staff or being susceptible to "hit by a bus" failure is often a deal breaker
GPL + CLA = bad. If you contribute to GPL Redis and transfer the copyright to your contributions to the Redis company, they can switch to whatever license they want.
SSPL + no CLA = interesting, I would love to see the Redis company open source their hosting stack because they are accepting external contributions.
Or plan to make money with other people's love and free-time.